Critical political economy in practice: the case of an advertising/editorial conflict at Brainstorm

Abstract:

Critical political economists argue that media in a democratic society are not
inherently free, as they rely on advertisers for revenue, and their editorial content
can be influenced by commercial considerations. However, liberal pluralist
theorists argue that journalists’ and editors’ normative attachment to
independence and professionalism provide a counterbalance to advertisers’
wants. In South Africa, where commercial pressures have been exacerbated in
increased competition for adspend, local publications have sought to create
alternative revenue streams, such as supplements specifically targeted at
advertisers. This research report examines the issues raised by such products by
examining a conflict at the ICT publication Brainstorm over one of its
supplements. The study looks at an incident of an advertiser demanding changes
to editorial content and reactions to the demands within the media organisation,
considering individual journalists’ reactions and how the issue played out in
several different departments in the publishing house. The research found that
companies within the ICT sector, who are often also advertisers, routinely try to
have editorial copy changed to their advantage, and that these companies do not
have a clear understanding of the media industry and its processes. Journalists
resist these changes, but the research found that supplements are not viewed as
seriously by journalists as other types of editorial content, because the
supplements are financed by advertisers. The research demonstrates that such
supplements operate in a grey area because they blur the boundaries between
advertising and editorial. As such, journalists and editors find it harder to defend
their professional independence in producing the content. The fuzziness about
whether the supplements are advertorial or editorial casts doubt on the credibility
of such products.